9.16.2006
On Academism and String Theory
Gregg Easterbrook (TNR writer, sometime Slate contributor) published a great article in Slate this past week, on the subject of University Physics departments and their unquestioning acceptance of "String Theory."
The backdrop for this article is the fact that at the top universities, each field of study tends to develop an unquestioned and close-minded paradigm, sometimes manifested as a particular theory of framework within which everyone must work. At least in some departments, there are two or three major frameworks, so that there is still intellectual rigor and argumentation. According to this article, that has not been the case for decades in theoretical physics. And based on my intuitions and perceptions of people I've known who are interested in physics, that is a dead-on accurate claim.
I used to be a theoretical physics nerd, and read lots of quasi-popular books on the subject. I remember when a friend of mine (similarly inclined) introduced me to the concept of 11-dimensional string theory, which purported to explain practically everything in theoretical physics that was interesting to a young physics nerd. It sounded great.
Apparently, I wasn't the only one -- university physics profs have adopted this idea as gospel, and according to the author of the new book mentioned in Easterbrook's article, a young physicist is committing career suicide if he disputes the model! All this without any evidence to speak of for the "theory."
I am pretty sympathetic to these types of claims, if only because academic types do tend to create an entrenched wayof thinking and defend it tooth and nail against interlopers, critics, and entrepreneurial thought by younger faculty. I've seen this happen in numerous fields, such as law and medicine.
Anyway, the article is a good read, if only to update you on the state of theoretical physics in the academy. I find experimental physics far more exciting these days - particle accelerators, new forms of matter, materials science - stuff that might actually help the world and our understanding of nature. Theoretical physics has sadly become a bit like priests in the ivory tower, dispensing their wisdom and silencing any critics of their 11-dimensional theory of being, time, and everything. At least, so it seems. I'd love to read a rejoinder by someone, showing that physics departments are far more open and critical of String Theory. But so far - nada.
The backdrop for this article is the fact that at the top universities, each field of study tends to develop an unquestioned and close-minded paradigm, sometimes manifested as a particular theory of framework within which everyone must work. At least in some departments, there are two or three major frameworks, so that there is still intellectual rigor and argumentation. According to this article, that has not been the case for decades in theoretical physics. And based on my intuitions and perceptions of people I've known who are interested in physics, that is a dead-on accurate claim.
I used to be a theoretical physics nerd, and read lots of quasi-popular books on the subject. I remember when a friend of mine (similarly inclined) introduced me to the concept of 11-dimensional string theory, which purported to explain practically everything in theoretical physics that was interesting to a young physics nerd. It sounded great.
Apparently, I wasn't the only one -- university physics profs have adopted this idea as gospel, and according to the author of the new book mentioned in Easterbrook's article, a young physicist is committing career suicide if he disputes the model! All this without any evidence to speak of for the "theory."
I am pretty sympathetic to these types of claims, if only because academic types do tend to create an entrenched wayof thinking and defend it tooth and nail against interlopers, critics, and entrepreneurial thought by younger faculty. I've seen this happen in numerous fields, such as law and medicine.
Anyway, the article is a good read, if only to update you on the state of theoretical physics in the academy. I find experimental physics far more exciting these days - particle accelerators, new forms of matter, materials science - stuff that might actually help the world and our understanding of nature. Theoretical physics has sadly become a bit like priests in the ivory tower, dispensing their wisdom and silencing any critics of their 11-dimensional theory of being, time, and everything. At least, so it seems. I'd love to read a rejoinder by someone, showing that physics departments are far more open and critical of String Theory. But so far - nada.
9.12.2006
No rant, only links
I don't have a rant today or anything, so I thought I would post neat links and news items:
Good links or news items
Dumb state senator believes God saved him, implying God purposefully killed the other 47 passengers. And you wonder why Christianity gets a bad rap among the intelligentsia, when people say shit like this...
Too funny, middle-aged man walks through airport security with a vibrator in his pants, confuses TSA. Read the whole entry.
Salon's excellent article on "Forbidden Thoughts about 9/11." This should have been published in 2002, but even Salon lacks those cajones!
My new favorite random distraction online: Commercials I Hate.
British Police stop photographer under Anti-Terrorism Law, log his activities. The Western "War on Terror" has become such a ridiculous trope that it is not even worth hypothesizing about anymore - the truth is stranger than fiction.
That's all for now.
Good links or news items
Dumb state senator believes God saved him, implying God purposefully killed the other 47 passengers. And you wonder why Christianity gets a bad rap among the intelligentsia, when people say shit like this...
Too funny, middle-aged man walks through airport security with a vibrator in his pants, confuses TSA. Read the whole entry.
Salon's excellent article on "Forbidden Thoughts about 9/11." This should have been published in 2002, but even Salon lacks those cajones!
My new favorite random distraction online: Commercials I Hate.
British Police stop photographer under Anti-Terrorism Law, log his activities. The Western "War on Terror" has become such a ridiculous trope that it is not even worth hypothesizing about anymore - the truth is stranger than fiction.
That's all for now.
9.05.2006
More Buchanan
Want to hear Buchanan sound like a radical leftist? (or certain college Professors on the Left, anyway)
Hahaha! And the traditional political spectrum (left-center-right) makes no sense at all. Buchanan, as far right-wing as you can be and still speak on television in this country, and a populist-type, syncs up with left-liberals on trade agreements and corporatism, as well as black racial impoverishment via negligent economic policies.
The Bush plan is economic treason against the American worker. That “civil rights leaders” are silent about the dispossession of the black working class, that unions are not marching to denounce this sellout of blue-collar and white-collar America, only tells us that the amorality of the transnational corporation has infected both. Solidarity be damned, it is all about money now.-- Buchanan, State of Emergency
Hahaha! And the traditional political spectrum (left-center-right) makes no sense at all. Buchanan, as far right-wing as you can be and still speak on television in this country, and a populist-type, syncs up with left-liberals on trade agreements and corporatism, as well as black racial impoverishment via negligent economic policies.
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan is an iconic figure for my generation. He has consistently taken a "nativist," anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-interventionist stance in foreign affairs, outmaneuvering both Left-Liberal Democrats (whose flaw is their aversion to trade agreements as an absolutist principle) and Conservative Republicans (whose flaw is their borderline hatred of immigrants and recent penchant for arbitrary invasions of sovereign nations).
For all his oddness and references to America as a Christian Nation, I think Buchanan can sometimes be right. I'm not sure if he is "right" on immigration policy, but he makes this Hispanic/Latino leader look foolish in this CNN exchange between Buchanan and National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia. Buchanan points out that while Murguia dislikes Buchanan's stance on immigration policy, she cannot point out any factual or logical errors on his part, or suggest why his policy preferences are incorrect. Instead, she attributes his stance to his "trying to sell a book." That's bullshit -- Buchanan has had this stance forever, and furthermore, she is just as guilty. She is trying to promote her lobbying organization - The Nat. Council of La Raza - an organization, which, let's be clear, seeks rents and rights for a particular race of Americans and non-Americans. I hardly think it is strange to question her legitimacy as an independent commentator when she leads a racial lobbying organization. And no one can really argue with my characterization -- after all, does La Raza lobby for any black Americans?
Buchanan also has a blog now -- no shit! -- and you can read it at right from the beginning. The headliner quotations on his blog change whenever you login/refresh, but this one, a quote from his current book, jumped out at me:
For all his oddness and references to America as a Christian Nation, I think Buchanan can sometimes be right. I'm not sure if he is "right" on immigration policy, but he makes this Hispanic/Latino leader look foolish in this CNN exchange between Buchanan and National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia. Buchanan points out that while Murguia dislikes Buchanan's stance on immigration policy, she cannot point out any factual or logical errors on his part, or suggest why his policy preferences are incorrect. Instead, she attributes his stance to his "trying to sell a book." That's bullshit -- Buchanan has had this stance forever, and furthermore, she is just as guilty. She is trying to promote her lobbying organization - The Nat. Council of La Raza - an organization, which, let's be clear, seeks rents and rights for a particular race of Americans and non-Americans. I hardly think it is strange to question her legitimacy as an independent commentator when she leads a racial lobbying organization. And no one can really argue with my characterization -- after all, does La Raza lobby for any black Americans?
Buchanan also has a blog now -- no shit! -- and you can read it at right from the beginning. The headliner quotations on his blog change whenever you login/refresh, but this one, a quote from his current book, jumped out at me:
In 1960, the U.S. population was 89% white. By 1990, it was 76%. Today, it is under 70%. By 2050, white Americans, the most loyal voting bloc the Republican Party has, that provides 90% of all GOP votes, will be just another minority because of an immigration policy championed by Republicans. When John Stuart Mill called the Tories ‘the Stupid Party,’ he was not entirely wrong.
-- Pat Buchanan, State of Emergency
